On Thursday morning, a man went on a shooting spree at two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee. He killed four U.S. Marines before he was killed, presumably by police, though that had not been released at the time this was written. A sailor from Paulding died a few days later.
A city employee, and special police officer, Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez, was named as the shooter.
While we are still in the early stages of the investigation there are two observations that need to be made.
First, it really should come as no surprise that the word Mohammad was in his name. It serves as a reminder that Islamic extremism is still a deadly threat worldwide and on U.S. soil.
Second, though, is that photographs of one of the shooting locations showed the all-too-familiar sign of a gun with a red line through it. It is probably a safe assumption that both locations were gun-free zones, though that fact is not easily ascertained because the media almost never report if a shooting location is a gun-free zone.
While both these points are common when it comes to terrorist attacks, the second point is a common factor also in mass shootings that do not involved domestic or international terrorism.
It still surprises me every time there is a mass shooting the media do not seem to care that to report that salient fact. After all, how could there possibly be a shooting in a place where a sign outlaws the possession of a firearm? It’s a mystery, I suppose. On a serious note, it is probably because the leftists who dominate the media world would rather push the anti-gun agenda rather than point out the fact that gun-free zones create victim zones.
Predators always seek the weakest prey and areas where guns are not only banned, but publicly announced through a sign on the door. It must be a candy store to someone intent on a mass killing. That sign of a gun with a red line across it might as well be a bull’s-eye.
What is more disturbing — for lack of a better word — is not that it was a gun-free zone, but it was a military installation that was a gun-free zone.
Seriously, soldiers, sailors and Marines are targets, yet the federal government will not allow them to carry, even if they have a local license to carry concealed.
Does anyone really doubt that a trained serviceman — and odds are good in today’s America where we are engaged in perpetual war that the Marines here were war veterans — is capable of safely carrying a firearm?
Unfortunately, the disarming of the U.S. military is another anti-Second Amendment legacy of President Bill Clinton.
Former NYPD detective Harry Houck told CNN shortly after the shooting that the military’s “gun-free zone” mindset has to change.
“I’m a Marine. And this really is hitting me a little harder here than normal that [these Marines] weren’t able to protect themselves at the time this occurred,” he said. “We need people that are armed.”
Not only the military. There should be NO gun-free zones. None.
It’s time to end gun violence by finally putting an end to these victim zones.
Thomas J. Lucente Jr. is an Ohio attorney and night editor of The Lima News. Reach him by telephone at 567-242-0398, by email at [email protected], or on Twitter @ThomasLucente.